Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-26
THE LATE STRIKE.
RESULT OF fHs SUIT AaArH'r THE
'IoHGsHObYnEn's sss0cr ALTON.
Judge Brown Decides In Favor OF tho Old
Dominion Company-His
Reasons.
fnr ielorrnrh to tho pIspa.ch.l

NEW YORK, February 25.-Judge
Brown to-day in the United States Cir
cult Court handed down his decision in
the suit of the Old Dominion steam
ship Company against John j. Mcken-
Ia, James L. Quinn, and others OF the
Ocean Association, or a motion to have
the defendants discharged from arrest.
The suit was brought 10 recover $1,000
damages alleged 10 have been sustained
by the company through the unlawful
action Of the defendants in the recent
strike of 1ongshorenien and in their at
tempt to place a boycott on the COM
pany in its business as common car
ricr. The defendants are out on bail
The defence argued that the material
facts in the complaint were fur
nished on information and belief
only, without particulars, and that the
defendants were acting within their
legal rights. Judge Brown reviews the
charge and decides that the material
points are stated positively and that the
sources of information are sufficiently
indicated that the facts stated in the
complaint and affidavits constitute
legal cause for action against all the de-
PENDANTS, and the motion to discharge
from arrest is denied
Judge Brown gives the following
reasons:
First. The plaintiffs are engaged in
the legal calling Of common carriers,
which requires the employment Of nu-
merous workmen, who are asserted to
have been employed at just and salts
factory wages.
Second. The defendants were not in
the employ of the company, and had no
legal justification to interfere IN the
mere question of wages. 1t is charged
that they excited the employees of the
company both in this city and in south
en- ports to quit work in body; to
infict damage upon the business
of the plaintiff until the demands
of the defendants should be granted,
which the plaintiff was under no
obligation to do. The procurement
of employees to leave work was to inhict
injury upon the business of the COM
pany, and was not justifiable, thereby
in law was malicious and illegal inter
ference with the business OF the COM
pany which was actionable.
Third. After the strike the defend
ants placed boycott on the business Of
the company, interfering with its bust
ness az common carriers, and tried to
deter others from doing business with
the plaintiff TO the latter's damage.
These acts were not merely illegal, but
also misdemeanors In common law, as
we'll as by section 168 of the penal code.
in the fourth place, Judge Brown goes
on to say, associations have no more
right to inflict injuries upon othersthan
individuals have. All combinations and
associations designed 10 cocrce work
men to become members of, or to in
terfere with, obstruct, vex, or annoy
them in working or in obtaining work
because they are not members, or in
order to induce them to become mem
bers, or designed to prevent employers
from making just discrimination in
wages paid to the skilful and unskilful,
10 the diligent and lazy, to the efficient
and inefficient, and all associations de-
signed TO interfere with the perfect
freedom of employers in the pro
per management and control of
their lawful business, or TO dictate in
any particular terms upon which
their business shall be conducted
by means of threats of injury or loss
nv intarfarence with their nrODprty or
traffic, or with their lawful employ
ment of other persons, or designed to
abridge any of these rights, are illegal
combinations or associations and all
acts done in furtherance of such inten-
tons, by such means and accompanied
by damage, are actionable.
There is no doubt concerning the
plaintiffs legal rights, as should debar
It from the usual remedy.